g8 results

[Cloud No.9]

no the problem with subsidised goods is. farmers here are paid to over-produce and so the left overs gets dumped on africa at cheap prices which drives down their own farmers profits. and maybe free trade should only be one way for now. it's not going to make us starve but ti will starve millions of them.

driving down prices for africa farmers reduceds their profits. and so the aoutn of seed and fertilizer they can buy. and so the amount they produce. and afircan farmers producing less is only a bad thing.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

How, exactly, does one "end poverty in Africa?" Wave a magic wand? We can send over boat-loads of money, but until they're willing to help themselves, nothing will change. Same with the AIDS epidemic there.

Are you suggesting that the people starving to death in the sun, still arent willing to help themselves??? Or are you saying that because the government is corrupt and refuses to help its people, that we should stand back and watch these people die on CNN(or maybe u prefer Fox News)? Either way i think your wrong.

I dont think the military option is the right one, but i think whatever we can do, we should do. This includes forgiving debt that will never be paid off, seeing as these countries economies will never rise otherwise. Our officials are corrupt, they see Africa as a cash cow, that they can milk for years without the well running dry.

[Raistlin]

Are you suggesting that the people starving to death in the sun, still arent willing to help themselves??? Or are you saying that because the government is corrupt and refuses to help its people, that we should stand back and watch these people die on CNN(or maybe u prefer Fox News)? Either way i think your wrong.

The men are continually getting, transmitting, and dying from AIDS, which, I would imagine, is a much more painful experience than starvation, yet the majority of them still refuse to wear condoms. Where irrationality is concerned, there is no such thing as "reason."
How does the government have to "help its people?" Define how, exactly, a government must help its people, and where - precisely - do you draw the line?
Oh, and for the record: I can't stand FOX News.

I dont think the military option is the right one, but i think whatever we can do, we should do. This includes forgiving debt that will never be paid off, seeing as these countries economies will never rise otherwise. Our officials are corrupt, they see Africa as a cash cow, that they can milk for years without the well running dry.

Their economies will never rise because there's not a free market. We can give them more and more money, but it's just drops of water in a bottomless pit.
Yes, our officials are corrupt, but that goes into another argument(which I have argued in numerous other threads - most lately the Supreme Court emiment domain thread).

[Cloud No.9]

for once i agree with csz. the aids thing in africa is caused by most of them being catholic and the pope willing to keep the situation going.

and to get around the corrupt government thing why not do what many charities do and instead of giving the government money and saying "promise to build a school with this". you can just build the school.

[Raistlin]

the aids thing in africa is caused by most of them being catholic and the pope willing to keep the situation going.

This is not the Pope's or the Church's fault. Nobody is forced to follow the Church's words - they make the choice to subordinate their judgment in favor of another's. That's their fault.

and to get around the corrupt government thing why not do what many charities do and instead of giving the government money and saying "promise to build a school with this". you can just build the school.

Exactly.

[Madame Adequate]

This is not the Pope's or the Church's fault. Nobody is forced to follow the Church's words - they make the choice to subordinate their judgment in favor of another's. That's their fault.

??? I agree entirely that people should think for themselves, but the simple fact is that their beliefs lead them to dying. Lots. And the Pope has the capacity to stop this (Or at least mitigate it), so shouldn't he be doing that?

1. What do you mean by "not ruling?" I think that would be a good thing.
2. How much does have to aid its people before it's ok? Is there a specific dollar amount per person?
3. First off, the typical African males refuse to wear condoms outright. Secondly, how much does a government have to educate? I wouldn't consider a country without public education to be evil.
4. How do you judge "corrupt?"
5. So...not wanting change warrants invasion?

1) Fair point. Not what I was trying to say, of course, but a fair point for Western nations, where we have the resources and access to information to make our own decisions, and we have established and at least reasonably robust systems in place to right wrongs.

2) I didn't mean aid in that sense, but I didn't clarify so it doesn't matter. My point was a more general sense of 'aid', ie building hospitals instead of funding gangs, and putting people through schools.

3) Nor would I, but when there are plainly established facts about a situation, and the government isn't trying to educate people, the government is in error. It's like smoking. There's no moral grounds to ban it, but the risks must be told.

4) When they pay people to raze crops, rape women, amputate children, and massacre men with aid money designated for education, food, and medicines.

5) When the absence of change is leading to a reported 30,000 dead children a day, yes. Ok, in general I'm all about reduction of armed forces and military isolationism, but in this instance by far the most assured way of fixing anything is imperialism. Or at the least entirely bypassing local governments, and building and running required infrastructure with their own funding and defending them with their own security forces. Which is tantamount to invasion anyway.

[Raistlin]

??? I agree entirely that people should think for themselves, but the simple fact is that their beliefs lead them to dying. Lots. And the Pope has the capacity to stop this (Or at least mitigate it), so shouldn't he be doing that?

Well...I guess. I'm just against any system where you rely on one body to tell you what to believe.

1. What do you mean by "not ruling?" I think that would be a good thing.
2. How much does have to aid its people before it's ok? Is there a specific dollar amount per person?
3. First off, the typical African males refuse to wear condoms outright. Secondly, how much does a government have to educate? I wouldn't consider a country without public education to be evil.
4. How do you judge "corrupt?"
5. So...not wanting change warrants invasion?

1) Fair point. Not what I was trying to say, of course, but a fair point for Western nations, where we have the resources and access to information to make our own decisions, and we have established and at least reasonably robust systems in place to right wrongs.

What kind of wrongs? Who decides what's wrong? There is an established system: the UN. The "what kind of wrongs" was objectively defined as "genocide" and "invasion." Nothing else - that I've seen anyway - can be objectively defined or consistently acted upon.

2) I didn't mean aid in that sense, but I didn't clarify so it doesn't matter. My point was a more general sense of 'aid', ie building hospitals instead of funding gangs, and putting people through schools.

But the government is not obligated to build hospitals or schools. These can, and arguably should, be privatized.

3) Nor would I, but when there are plainly established facts about a situation, and the government isn't trying to educate people, the government is in error. It's like smoking. There's no moral grounds to ban it, but the risks must be told.

Ok...so the government's supposed to sell itself out to the people? Why? For what? What about if they say "no, screw you?"

4) When they pay people to raze crops, rape women, amputate children, and massacre men with aid money designated for education, food, and medicines.

First off, many of things are not done by(or, at least, not exclusively done by) the government - so that's null. Secondly, again, how many crops have to be razed, how many women raped, how many children amputated, how many men massacred, how much money stolen from its people(which is done every two weeks by our own government through income tax) has to be done before it's "wrong?" If it's wrong, it's wrong to do it once - which means, by that logic, that we have to invade a country where one person's farmland was razed - and not necessarily by the government, either.
I'll ask you again: how can you objectively define the nature of the crimes in Africa that warrant invasion?

A corrupt government does not warrant conquering(unless it infringes on the rights of other countries or is committing genocide). It is up to the people of that area to establish and run its own government - and to make their own choices. If they want to fight against their government, they'll fight. If not, it doesn't happen.

5) When the absence of change is leading to a reported 30,000 dead children a day, yes. Ok, in general I'm all about reduction of armed forces and military isolationism, but in this instance by far the most assured way of fixing anything is imperialism. Or at the least entirely bypassing local governments, and building and running required infrastructure with their own funding and defending them with their own security forces. Which is tantamount to invasion anyway.

Ok, so you're all for an isolationist policy...except for this case. Why? Is 30,000 dead kids/day where you draw the line? "We shouldn't invade another country unless they invade us first...unless 30,000 kids/day are dying." Does the government have to be killing all of those kids - or, say, if an epidemic(AIDS) wiped through a village, killing 30,000 babies, would that warrant invasion?

"We must invade Africa." "Why?" "Because kids are dying." "But kids are dying here all the time from abusive parents to starvation to disease and any of a whole list of things - what makes Africa special?" There is no objective reason(that I've heard, anyway).

[Shlup]

I'm starting to think more and more that Africa needs to solve it's own problems. I'm not opposed to people going to Africa to help innocent individuals, but I don't think anything else (except probably making it easier for Africa to open trade) is doing anything but more harm.

[krissy]

education

[Shlup]

I count providing education under helping innocent individuals.

[Garland]

Imperialism played a role in getting Africa into this mess. We shouldn't use imperialism to try to get them out of it. Africa, by and large, comes across as a region that doesn't want to improve. They know about the Aids problem and they still have enough unprotected sex to spread the disease like wildfire. Africa does recieve handouts from pretty much every nation. I know they're recieving this, because every time I turn on the tv, some aid organization is begging me to sponsor one of their kids. You know someone is sending money, because they stay in business. What do they do with all this money? It gets squandered amongst the government elite. Until Africa makes even the smallest initiative not to be a war-torn, poverty striken, aids epidemic, there's nothing the world can do. It's like treating an alcoholic, or quitting smoking. The alcoholic or smoker has to make the first step. Africa's not doing it.

[Alice]

pleh greedy bastards... (the politicians) i cant believe it >.< We could give so much more, but those men just ride around in their bentleys as 100s of people die because they cant spare a few grand >.<

It makes me sick

[War Angel]

And I'm not remotely surprised that Live 8 did, essentially, nothing.

I'm sure it put a lot of money into the hands of many people. 'Sides, didn't Pink Floyd unite? That's a good thing, in my book.

Anyway - Africa's situation is dire and desperate. Sending money and ending their debts will do nothing - as the people are too busy simply staying alive, and the goverments are so corrupt and disconnected from the people, it doesn't even matter.

I say... let time do its thing. Let them act on their own. The west should help a-plenty, but it cannot initiate the process. Africans need to want their countries and situation to change.

Stopping shagging all the time and doing it with random people would be a good step in the elimination of AIDS. Actually growing food would be a good step in preventing starvation. Just ideas, you know.

[Cloud No.9]

growing food in africa is becoming harder as farmers are pushed out by subsidised over producing of the west.

we cannot let time do it's thing africa has consistantly gotten poorer and not ending this now will just result in millions of more deaths.

imperialism..... i'm gonna be a bit odd here. maybe getting rid of imperialism was in fact a bad thing. africa has gotten far poorer since independence from european countries. most countries followed the heroes who gained them their independence. but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and these heroes turned into dictators. and if we still had control of these countries maybe this wouldn't have got to this stage and we would ceetainly be in a better poition to end it.

[Garland]

African nations aren't exactly famous for their powerful militaries. If the best solution is conquering them all and fixing the situation by the most overt means possible, it'd probably be less expensive than constant charity donations untill Africa fixes itself. Of course, the US can't go into this alone, guns blazing. We'd need European support at the very least, but I imagine the nostalgia for the old days of colonial imperialism must still linger in some of Europe's more nationalistic citizens.